Jim Inhofe

I do not think you had time to fully develop it. That is, to what degree are we going to be influenced by Russia in our missile defense decisions that we make?

The one-time implementation cost of 2005 grew from $21 billion to $35 billion, an increase of $14 billion, or 67 percent.

The IED will remain the weapon of choice for terrorists, not only in Afghanistan, but also wherever the United States and our allies have national security interests.

How long, once fully funded, will it take the Army to return to a proper level of maintenance?

I am concerned that this administration is losing the ability to accurately budget for OCO at the same time many core readiness needs for the Services are being migrated to the OCO from the base budget.

I am satisfied that anything coming from North Korea or coming from that way we have the capability to shoot, look, and shoot.

Our National Military Strategy is no longer guided by the threats we face or an honest assessment of the resources needed to protect our critical interests.

I could quote several generals here. General Jacoby, for example, had said we are not in the most optimum posture to defend against an Iranian threat.

The budget before us today is symbolic for its lack of presidential leadership necessary to overcome the unprecedented challenges facing our military.

75 out of the 182 recommendations, about 41 percent, are now expected to result in a negative 20-year value.

Those commitments have not been met.

I opposed the one in 2005 for two reasons. One is that it was bringing down our infrastructure to an artificially low size to meet what I thought was an unacceptable force size.

I know of no other time in history when we have come potentially down this far, this fast in the defense budget.

No, not the most urgent.

Our military leaders are warning that we are on the brink of creating a hollow force, unprepared to respond to contingencies around the world.

I support the Secretary Defense's recommended changes to the UCMJ.

Asia is a complex region that exhibits a wide range of opinions; nevertheless several themes have recurred during our engagements in the region.

Readiness is the glue that holds our forces together. An inadequately trained force is a liability, not an asset.

It is imperative that we follow through with the President's commitment to re-engage in the Indo-Asia-Pacific.

Which U.S. agency do you consider to be the lead for humanitarian assistance and disaster response operations overseas?

While we trust you with our sons' and daughters' lives, the proposed modifications to Article 60 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) seem to suggest that we do not trust your discretion when it comes to UCMJ offenses.

Are you developing any plans to address climate change? If so, can you describe those plans?

It is concerning, and I think one of the aspects of the rebalance is to ensure that we have the right force posture, the right force mixture for the future in the Asia-Pacific so that we can reassure our allies, that we can reassure our…

I would agree with your statement. However, with the resources that we have, I would think that others would say, these need to be hardened also.

Old threats are being replaced by new, more dangerous ones, just like Kim Jong Il was replaced by Kim Jong Un.